there are some artciles , i foudn one and will search on it on my old iphone where i had it it was about lasting relationships and the women who investe alot of time and money and both of them were invested she stayed.
the ones where she was given she left .
anyways will repost this soon , yet below is something we should look at from notes and studying behaviour
https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/relationships-investment-model
Relationships: Investment Model
- by Joseph Sparks
The Investment Model was put forward by Rusbult et al. (2001), as a development of Social Exchange Theory. The rationale for developing SET further was that many couples stay together despite the costs outweighing the rewards, so there must be some other factors that keep them together. Rusbult's Investment Model investigates what these other factors might be.
Investment of Romantic Relationships
According to Rusbult's proposal, there are three major factors that maintain commitment in relationships: satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size.
Satisfaction level and comparison with alternatives are based on the idea of comparison levels from Social Exchange Theory. People will have a high level of satisfaction with relationships if they have more rewards (companionship, attention, emotional support) and fewer costs (arguments, time). They also tend to be committed to relationships if, when asking themselves, 'Is there a better alternative to satisfy my needs?' the answer is ‘no’. Alternatives can include staying on their own and not engaging in romantic relationships at all, as well as finding a new partner.
However, for Rusbult et al., the most important factor that maintains commitment to a relationship is investment. Investment refers to the number of resources, both tangible, like money or possessions, and intangible, like happy memories, that people will lose if they leave relationships. The model proposes two types of investment: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic investment comprises the things we put directly into the relationship, such as effort, money, possessions, self-disclosure. Extrinsic investment refers to the things that are brought to people's life through the relationships, such as children, friends and shared memories.
Because both intrinsic and extrinsic investments can potentially be lost if relationships end, Rusbult et al. concluded that the bigger the investment, the more likely people are to stay in relationships. Therefore, it is the investment size that influences commitment to relationships, rather than just the level of satisfaction or existence of potential alternatives.
In addition to the factors influencing partners’ commitment, Rusbult et al. also identified maintenance mechanisms partners use to keep relationships going.
These mechanisms are:
- Accommodation – acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.
- Willingness to sacrifice – putting partner's interests first.
- Forgiveness – willingness to forgive partner's mistakes, both minor and serous ones.
- Positive illusions – being unrealistically positive about partner's qualities.
- Ridiculing alternatives – minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.
Research Examining the Investment Model
There are numerous research studies supporting the Investment Model. Impett, Beals and Peplau (2002) conducted a longitudinal study using a large sample of married couples over an 18 months period. They found that stability of the relationships positively correlated with commitment shown by the partners.
Rhahgan and Axsom (2006) studied a group of women and found that all three factors identified by Rusbult et al. (satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment) featured in participants' decision to stay with their partner.
Similar trends were found in Le and Agnew’s (2003) study. They conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies, featuring 11,000 participants in total, and discovered that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment; and that commitment was a defining feature of long-lasting relationships.
Evaluation of the Investment Model
One strength of the Investment Model is that it is supported by numerous research studies. For example, Le and Agnew (2003) found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment. This supports the model’s claims about the factors contributing to commitment and about commitment being the most promising feature in successful long-term relationships, and thereby increases the reliability of the model.
The Investment Model provides a plausible explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships. According to the model, if a partner feels that the investment they made into relationships will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay in a relationship even when the costs are high (such as physical or emotional abuse) and rewards are few. Research into abusive relationships supports this idea. For example, Rusbult and Maltz, in their study of 'battered' women, found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they felt they had invested in the relationship and they didn't have any appealing alternatives. This shows that the Investment Model can be applied to a wide range or relationships experiences that the SET and Equity Theory fail to explain, thus increasing the Investment Model’s application to everyday relationships.
The majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational, so psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships. This limits the predictive validity of the model, as it would fail to predict which types of investment and how much investment will lead to long-term commitment to a relationship. Lack of predictive validity also makes the Investment Model less scientifically rigorous, as the ability to predict people's behaviour, in this case, whether or not they will stay committed to the relationship, is one of the main goals of psychology as a science.
Some psychologists point out that most evidence for the Investment Model comes from interviews and questionnaires, which are known to be subjective and unreliable. However, other researchers argue that, because satisfaction, investment and commitment are subjective values and depend on people's perception, using self-report techniques is an appropriate way to test the Investment Model. Therefore, data obtained through self-report techniques may provide a more realistic picture of reasons for relationship satisfaction and how it is related to investment and commitment, therefore making Investment Model more valid.
Issues and Debates: Investment Model
Even though the importance of investment was clearly demonstrated by research, some psychologists think that Rusbult’s idea of relationship investment is oversimplified. For example, Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue that it is not just things we bring to the relationships that could count as investment, but also a couple's plans for their future. In their view, partners will be committed to staying in the relationships because they want to see these plans realised. This shows that investment in romantic relationships is a complex phenomenon, consisting of many different factors, which makes the Investment Model reductionist.
Culture bias doesn't seem to be an issue for the Investment Model. Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (individualist culture) and in Taiwan (collectivist culture). Furthermore, the Investment Model, as an explanation of relationship maintenance, is also shown to be valid for different sub-groups, such as friendships; homosexual relationships; and cohabiting couples, etc. This suggests the universality of the Investment Model, making it applicable to wide range of relationships.
The fact that the evidence for the Investment Model is found across cultures may suggest that the human need for investment and commitment to relationships developed through the process of natural selection to help people survive and reproduce. For example, parents who are committed to their relationship and invest in it will have a higher chance of ensuring their children's survival and therefore of passing on their genes. This means that the Investment Model supports the nature side of the nature-nurture debate
One theory for the maintenance of romantic relationships is Social exchange theory. This views relationship behaviour as a series of exchanges based on rewards, costs and profit. Each person attempts to maximise their rewards while minimising their costs. The exchange element occurs when individuals receive rewards and thus feel obliged to reciprocate. Rewards are seen as pleasurable and beneficial, which may include company, security, intimacy or sex. Costs can be anything that occurs that is viewed as a loss to the individual due to being in the relationship e.g. effort, financial investment or time. This can also be problems, arguments, abuse, and loss of other relationship opportunities faced by the individual due to maintaining the current relationship. The costs subtracted from rewards equals in a perceived loss or profit for the individual. This theory proposes relationships are maintained with further commitment as long as the individual perceives a profit occurring. This theory proposes individuals use a comparison level to determine the value of exchanges. This comparison level is based on previous experiences of relationships, the person’s expectations of the relationship and a comparison of possible alternative relationships that may be available. This comparison may also look at the benefits of not being in a relationship compared to the current one and the gains of that (e.g. less arguments, more time with friends, freedom etc) If a person judges the current relationship offers poor value based on this comparison level they may be motivated to end it or maintain it provided the expected profits exceed this comparison level.
The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships: Psya3 Relationships
The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships
Social Exchange Theory – AO1 Theory (Thibaut And Kelly 1959)
Equity Theory (Walster 1978) – AO1 Theory For Psya3: The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships
Another theory for the maintenance of romantic relationships is Equity theory. This is similar in that it sees behaviour within relationships as a series of exchanges with people trying to maximise their rewards and minimise costs however the goal is not for profit but to achieve perceived fairness (equity). This theory proposes under-benefiting or over-benefiting both cause inequity within the relationship leading to dissatisfaction or possible dissolution. The greater the perceived inequity the greater the dissatisfaction and distress. Recognising inequity also provides a chance for the relationship to be saved by making adjustments to re-establish equity. This is provided the “loser” feels there is a chance of restoring fairness and is motivated to attempt to save the relationship. This can be done by changing they amount put into the relationship (Input), changing the amount taken from the relationship (Output) or changing their perception of Inputs and Outputs. (Practical applications in counselling IDA). Equity does not necessarily mean equality and both people can put in different amounts within the relationship and it can still be deemed equitable. If someone puts in little they may get little back while those who put in more may get more in return. Equity theory is therefore dependent on input/output ratios. People may still compare the relationship to their comparison level for other relationships to determine whether it is worth them continuing to invest or start a new relationship.
The quality of alternatives available may also lead an individual to end one relationship and start another while a lack of alternatives may lead the individual to continue to maintain the current relationship. The benefits of not being in the relationship may also be weighed up and if having no relationship is perceived as more attractive than being in an unhappy relationship this may also motivate them to end their current relationship.
Rusbult proposed that the level of investment by individuals also contributed to the stability and maintenance of the relationship. Investment can be seen as anything an individual puts into the relationship and this can vary from money to time, effort, shared friends to even emotional energy and possessions. Therefore the higher the investment an individual has put into the relationship the more chances of it being maintained. Rusbult tested this theory by asking college students (IDA – lacks generalisation to wider population) in heterosexual relationships (IDA – bias towards heterosexual relationships only – cannot explain gay/lesbien relationships and thus lacks wider generalisation!) to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period. They kept a record of how happy they were within their relationships, the possible alternatives as well as their level of investment and commitment. Results found that satisfaction, comparison against alternatives and investment all contributed to commitment and breakup. High levels of commitment and investment contributed heavily to committed relationships while the possibility of alternative relationships appeared to influence individuals to end relationships.
The Investment Model (Rusbult 1983) AO1 Theory (Psya3: The Maintenance Of Romantic Relationships)
A third theory explaining the maintenance of romantic relationships is the Investment Model by Rusbult (Investment Theory). Research has focused on whether individuals decide to remain in a relationship or whether they choose to leave with the term “commitment” used to describe a relationship continuing. The level of satisfaction a member receives by being in the relationship strengthens this commitment while possible alternatives weaken it. A third measure introduced by Rusbult was “investment” which further increases this commitment. Similar to social exchange theory, satisfaction is derived when the costs of the relationship are subtracted from the rewards with the remaining outcomes compared to a personal comparison level by the individual of what they feel is acceptable. If the outcomes surpass this comparison level then the individual will be satisfied while not meeting it will likely result in unhappiness.The quality of alternatives available may also lead an individual to end one relationship and start another while a lack of alternatives may lead the individual to continue to maintain the current relationship. The benefits of not being in the relationship may also be weighed up and if having no relationship is perceived as more attractive than being in an unhappy relationship this may also motivate them to end their current relationship.
Rusbult proposed that the level of investment by individuals also contributed to the stability and maintenance of the relationship. Investment can be seen as anything an individual puts into the relationship and this can vary from money to time, effort, shared friends to even emotional energy and possessions. Therefore the higher the investment an individual has put into the relationship the more chances of it being maintained. Rusbult tested this theory by asking college students (IDA – lacks generalisation to wider population) in heterosexual relationships (IDA – bias towards heterosexual relationships only – cannot explain gay/lesbien relationships and thus lacks wider generalisation!) to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period. They kept a record of how happy they were within their relationships, the possible alternatives as well as their level of investment and commitment. Results found that satisfaction, comparison against alternatives and investment all contributed to commitment and breakup. High levels of commitment and investment contributed heavily to committed relationships while the possibility of alternative relationships appeared to influence individuals to end relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment